W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:48:18 -0600
Message-ID: <da131fde0801250948h71ebb3dbs2af3793dfbcaf370@mail.gmail.com>
To: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, simonp@opera.com


Thanks for the update from Opera (haven't had time to test/read up on
it lately).  I'm all for restricting scriptability on images.

As for interactivity:  FWIW, the suggestion that an image is
non-interactive contradicts Simon's suggestion [1] with respect to the
usemap attribute.  I would suggest that the map is what is interactive
here, and not the image itself.

What about animated GIFs - what if some user agent allows you to
restart/freeze/loop the animated GIF?  That is technically interaction
and by my simple definition it would not be allowed on an image...
what about panning?  That's interactivity too...

So perhaps "non-interactive" is too restrictive a term?


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Oct/0137.html

On 1/25/08, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:26:35 +0100, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Whether or not script should be allowed to run inside an "image" (like
> > SVG) is another question that I would like to bring to the forefront.
> Opera does not run scripts for SVG embedded through the HTML <img>
> element, or the CSS 'content', 'background-image', and similar properties
> for the reasons Boris mentioned.
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 17:48:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:25 UTC